Dan Rather's Big "I"

Jonah Goldberg with a little bit of Gunga Dan retrospective, summed up nicely:

I have no objection to journalists having biases, much as I have no objection to two plus two equaling four. One may choose to accept the fact or not, but it is a fact nonetheless. Dan Rather, however, always insisted his reporting was bias-free, that he was calling the facts, and just the facts. His career as anchor ended in large part because he couldn’t accept that something he had reported wasn’t true and that he had rushed to report it because of an agenda that wasn’t stamped with an “I.” The irony is that that’s what his career was always about.

Journalists perpetrate a fraud on the American public every day when they fail to disclose biases, to cover stories from all viable angles, and when they choose to cover only those stories which advance their favored causes. In short, they defraud us whenever they claim they have no agenda but "The Truth".

Well, let's start with a little truth in advertising, and work our way up the cosmic chain from there, okay?

The New Terrorist Threat

Well, not entirely new. NRO has the lowdown on Hezbollah.

Why We're Right

Victor Davis Hanson dispels the quagmire myth, yet again, and in the process debunks the virtues of appeasement:

Every time the United States the last quarter century had acted boldly — its removal of Noriega and aid for the Contras, instantaneous support for a reunified Germany, extension of NATO, preference for Yeltsin instead of Gorbachev, Gulf War I, bombing of Milosevic, support for Sharon's fence, withdrawal from Gaza and decapitation of the Hamas killer elite, taking out the Taliban and Saddam-good things have ensued. In contrast, on every occasion that we have temporized — abject withdrawal from Lebanon, appeasement of Arafat at Oslo, a decade of inaction in the Balkans, paralysis in Rwanda, sloth in the face of terrorist attacks, not going to Baghdad in 1991 — corpses pile up and the United States became either less secure or less respected or both.

So it is also in this present war, in which our unheralded successes far outweigh our notorious mistakes. A number of books right now in galleys are going to look very, very silly, as they forecast American defeat, a failed Middle East, and the wages of not listening to their far smarter recommendations of using the U.N. more, listening to Europe, or bringing back the Clinton A-Team.

America's daring, not its support for the familiar — but ultimately unstable and corrupt — status quo, explains why less than three years after September 11, the Middle East is a world away from where it was on the first day of the war. And that is a very good thing indeed.

I like the way Churchill put it best: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last."

Kim Jong-Il, Kim Jong-Il Mon Amour

Hugh Hewitt puts the coup de grace to the LA Times and its resident North Korea propaganda minister, Barbara Demick:

What the totality of Demick's work demonstrates is that neither she nor her editors are in a hurry to detail the horrific nature of the North Korean regime. In fact, they work to smooth over that shocking picture, even to the extent of providing a front-page apologia.

WHAT CAN BE SAID of Demick and the Los Angeles Times? First, favorable propaganda of this sort would never be written if the regime in question were suspected of rightwing extremism.

The Nazis staged wonderful Wagner revues, but to dwell on these rather misses the point.

Bill Clinton's Shrinky Dink Legacy

Ever get the idea that Bill Clinton just doesn't process that 9/11 occurred?

David Holman of The American Spectator does.

Here's his summary bit on Clinton's Iranian legacy:

Later that month, the Clinton administration eased sanctions against Iran and other terrorist nations. And a State Department report on terrorism-sponsoring states weakened criticism of Iran and welcomed relatively positive developments: "Tehran apparently conducted fewer anti-dissident assassinations abroad in 1998 than in 1997."

Clinton ought to know by now that the alleged reformer Khatami is powerless against the theocratic Shiites actually calling the shots in Iran. While Clinton mulled further appeasement during the summer of 1999, students demonstrating in favor of Khatami's reform policies and against repression were brutally silenced. The Clinton State Department blithely asked Iran not to harm the protesters. But otherwise it was silent.

Nineteen ninety-nine continued to be a banner year for U.S.-Iran relations under Clinton. He treated new evidence of Iran's hand in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing as an opportunity to seek a thaw in relations. That August, President Clinton sent President Khatami a mere letter asking for help in the investigation, three years after the fact. Even by pre-9/11 standards, Clinton was lax. The 2000 National Commission on Terrorism report faulted Clinton for not pressing Iranian cooperation harder.

We ought to thank Clinton for reminding us of his "years of sabbatical." He remains a pre-9/11 relic who's learned nothing from President Bush's strong foreign policy. A terrorist-sponsor like Iran he treats as a prodigal son needing nothing more than love and attention. Yet if Iran poses a nuclear threat and proves intractable, Bill Clinton will be as responsible as anyone.

Clinton's flaccid foreign policy was another progression of the Democratic cancer which began with FDR's appeasement of Stalin, continued through Kennedy's appeasement of Kruschev and LBJ's capitulation to Ho Chi Minh, accelerated with Jimmy Carter's complete surrender to the Ayatollah Khomeini, and found its apogee to date with Bill Clinton's complete capitulation over North Korean nukes, Iranian totalitarianism, the growth of Islamofascism, and Saddam Hussein's appeasement.

If ever there were a more feckless man to hold the reins of power than Bill Clinton, may God forgive him and succor his broken countrymen.

"Blog", Dissected

An interesting book review of the Blogfather's book for your consideration.

Here's a tidbit:

If there's misplaced faith in Hugh's book, it's all in credentialism. He loves the idea that experts -- scholars, lawyers like him, people with lots of academic years behind them -- are blogging and setting the media straight. Far better, that, than all us generalist journalists (say that five times fast) writing on stuff about which we know little. It's a refrain of Hugh's. In a previous book of advice for young Christians, he actually told them they were wasting their time if they didn't matriculate at the top universities, such as his beloved Harvard. No, he did. When Bill Buckley famously quipped that he'd rather be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston directory than by the entire faculty of Harvard, Hugh was, well, preparing to go to Harvard. Hugh needs an anti-credentialist epiphany, and soon.

This is, I think, an Achilles heel of Hugh and some of the other lawyer-bloggers. Credibility is not solely derived from who you are but how you back up what you say. If credentials were the sole consideration, Dan Rather would be Walter Cronkite, Todd Blackledge would be enshrined in Canton, and the Emperor's clothes would have been splendid indeed.

It's tempting to compare the quality of bloggers' credentials with those of their MSM counterparts, but it's also a pointless exercise. For every Harvard-educated lawyer driving a revolution in information and citizen journalism like Hugh, you've got a bootlicking toady like Robert Reich. The big difference between the two is not credentials but credibility---Hewitt's on the right side of history and Reich is sniffing around in Stalin's garbage.

Will Anything Be More Fun to Watch than UN Ambassador John Bolton?

Bob Tyrrell doesn't think so:

Bolton has referred to North Korea as "a hellish nightmare" governed by a "tyrannical dictator." Ah, the lilt and substance of Moynihan and Kirkpatrick is about to be restored to the Security Council and the General Assembly. On another occasion Bolton wrote that if the glass zoo on the East River that is UN headquarters "lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." I look forward to more of this kind of eloquence.

Certainly the moral condition of the UN is not likely to improve soon. In the 1970s and 1980s when Moynihan and Kirkpatrick represented us, the threat to America was mostly ideological and a matter of power politics. The UN did of course allow Zionism to be equated with racism. It did see a moral equivalence between the West and the Soviets. But the moral quality of the UN has actually gotten worse in the absence of the Soviets. Its peace keepers now are guilty of rape and rampage in Africa. Even its bureaucrats have been caught in sexual harassment, to say nothing of graft. The oil-for-food scandal is probably the largest instance of corruption ever recorded. And the anti-Semitism at the UN is even more rampant. Recall, if you will, the 2001 Durban meeting on international racism that seethed with anti-Semitism. Finally there is the absurdity of the UN's Human Rights Commission, where such nations as Cuba and Zimbabwe pass on the alleged human rights abuses of Americans.

Bolton will cut through this corruption, at least with oratory if not with policy. While at the State Department Bolton has fashioned some memorable policy, perhaps the most useful being the Proliferation Security Initiative. At the UN it is hard to see what sort of policies Bolton can get the body to adopt. Its corruption is so extensive and the United States is but one member against the mob. But Bolton can sober up the assembled popinjays by pointing out each UN failure. The fact is that the UN is no longer of any value in maintaining the peaceful intercourse of nations. Possibly Bolton will fulfill the historic role of becoming America's last ambassador to the UN. No gravy train lasts forever.

Even better will be watching Sonorous John blow the Magic Hat right off of his head whenever he decides to visit the Senate floor after Bolton once again takes Kofi and his thug posse to task.

If C-SPAN sold stock, I'd be buying it.

What's Assad Up To?

Up to his neck in alligators, it sounds like:

The state's spin doctors continue to grind out a meal of "business as usual," offering up a diet of evidence that Bashar Assad's regime is far more benign than his father's. Indeed, even
Syria's opposition credits the 39-year-old leader with opening the country up to Internet and cell-phone coverage – allowing those who don't parrot government talk the chance to communicate and read about the rest of the world.

Government spokesmen insist "the president is just as popular as ever. This will not change anything, it will just soften the blow for the regime."

Abdel Hamid noted that Syria might now work to frighten Lebanon into submission by raising the specter of a rising Hizbullah. "Syria will ensure that Hizbullah will be a major power-broker, if not the major power-broker, once it leaves," he said.

However, Syria's opposition, said one diplomat here, "cannot organize its way out of a paper bag." In the words of one of its own, Syria's opposition leader Yassin Haj Saleh, "We are weak, we are feeble, but we must keep on."

The bottom line is Porter Goss had better be working overtime finding ways to help the Lebanese resistance. And some high-resolution targeting photos of Syrian assets might be nice too.

He Said, She Said: Vegetarianism

Since I made the commitment to go vegan for Lent, I have been investigating and researching the pros and cons of vegetarianism and veganism; nutrition, impact on the environment, the ill health and suffering of the animals we put on our plates, etc..

Most of the demographic information seems to come down on the side of vegetarianism. Vegetarians live longer, healthier lives for the most part. Although this is probably due to the fact that vegetarians/vegans are generally individuals who take care of themselves anyway (most vegetarians are predisposed to avoid excessive drinking, any smoking or drug abuse and have an attraction to fitness and good nutrition) much of it is credited simply to the diet itself.

But there are simply things that veggie products can't do. Animal protein is "complete" (it lacks no essential amino acids) while vegetarians must combine foods to complete protein chains for optimal nutrition. And even the strictest pro-veg sites I have found still advocate B12 supplementation (an essential vitamin found only in animal products). Then there is information that refutes the age old claim that dairy calcium is best. And while I'm still skeptical, I wonder why I can't find more pro-carnivore information. Maybe because the web is flooded with hot topic pro-vegetarian information and the mother wisdom of omnivore eating is akin to a huge "duh" in the logical mind.

Still, in my research I've found graphic footage of animal farming and slaughtering conditions. And while I consider the source (PeTA and their narrator, Alec Baldwin, are NOT people I agree with -- period), I would like clarity as to whether this footage has been edited for bias (a la Michael Moore) or if it is, in fact, a verifiable truth of meat production. "Evidence" (from Vegan sources) says that even organic milking and free range egg production is just as bad as traditional dairying and laying methods.

PeTA is obviously a violent fringe group. They want to blow up people who disagree with them. They receive very poor ratings for their "work" (as do the Humane Society of the United States, the National Humane Education Society, Humane Society International, and The Greenpeace Fund). And their m.o. seems to be world domination. They see animal life as equal (if not superior to) human life. And while the rant against animal research, they are pro-choice and pro-embryonic stem cell research. That smacks of hypocrisy and intolerable idiocy. I DISAGREE with violent death, human deaths being the FIRST priority, which flies in the face of PeTA's stance. So I want to make this clear: I DO NOT SUPPORT PETA OR ANY OTHER MILITANT ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUP.

I know from personal experience that the cattle raised in my area are constantly roaming free in large pastures munching happily on grass. And I've come across information which clearly defends cattle raising as the most viable option for land management (apparently, the resources needed to produce food for a nation of vegans would create a massive desert). Unfortunately, I have also seen first hand the conditions chickens and turkeys must endure as I pass raising houses, transport trucks, and processing plants everyday. And I have found a plethora of Christian groups who advocate vegetarianism with mercy as their primary motivation.

I know animals do not have souls. I know they were put here for us to subdue. But I also know the respect for all life runs deep in the fabric of my Spirit. I understand that Old Testament Israel was called to sacrifice animals with mercy, placing their hands on the head of the animal as a sign of empathy and respect, but if we don't HAVE to do it...

In short, I'm conflicted. Set me straight.

Sovereignty Under Assault

NRO has a great interview up with Jeremy Rabkin regarding the dying concept of national sovereignty:

NRO: How did the Founding Fathers view sovereignty?

Rabkin: The Constitution makes federal law (and the federal Constitution) "supreme law of the land." States don't even have the last word on their own constitutions (or when they can adhere to their own constitutions). All of the Founders would have been appalled at the thought that the federal government, in turn, would be subordinate to some supranational or international entity, which could claim priority in this way over the American Constitution and American laws.

NRO: Is the sovereignty advocated by the Founders eroding in America?

Rabkin: Perhaps "eroding" is too strong a term. But we are not as alert to dangers as we once were. For example, the Supreme Court has recently invoked foreign legal decisions as a guide to interpreting the U.S. Constitution — on the apparent assumption that our own constitution ought to be consistent with what the Court has called the opinions of "the world community." The premise is that the world is evolving toward consensus and the United States must be part of that. The purpose of sovereignty is to safeguard our right to be different — because we have no good reason to think others know better than Americans how our nation should be governed or that Americans will be more attached to world law than our own law.

What concerns me is the general idea that America is offending other nations by holding to its own constitutional scheme. We shouldn't be apologetic about that. We have good moral claims to hold to our own traditional governing scheme. Sovereignty may be out of fashion in Europe but it still has lots of appeal to most countries in most other parts of the world.

This is what's most appalling with the latest decision the brain-addled septuagenarians of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the death penalty to juveniles---overturning American law crafted by American legislators on the basis of "international consensus" is a direct assault on our sovereignty.

Were we not founded on the very notion that we have a right to choose our government representatives? Which Americans elected the Brussels bureaucrats Anthony Kennedy and the other four pinheads on the Court swoon over?

This will be the sleeper foreign policy and judicial issue of the next couple of election campaigns.

Reality-Challenged Liberals

Jonah Goldberg calls the Lefties on their latest descent into condescension and tinfoil habidashery.

Our European "Allies" and the China Threat

Well, there they go again:

The European Union implemented an arms embargo after the Chinese regime's slaughter of demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. But a number of European companies and governments see potential profits from servicing Beijing's arms needs; PRC defense spending has been growing around ten or so percent annually and now stands at a respectable $150 billion a year.

Some Europeans also hope to become a counterweight to America and believe a relationship with China will aid that effort. A French foreign ministry figure was quoted: "Of course we are in favor of lifting the embargo. It no longer corresponds to the reality of the Euro-Chinese strategic partnership."

The betting now is that the EU will drop the prohibition at its June meeting in Brussels.

Isn't it funny how the very same criticisms leveled at the U.S. over our Middle East policy seem to be much more the raison d'etre of European foreign policy? In other words, it's perfectly fine for Europeans arms merchants to make a mint shipping truncheons to thugs, but quite another thing for the U.S. to overthrow a tyranny fueled by oil sales.

We Come To Bury Dan Rather, Not Praise Him

American Spectator's obit:

CBS News broke all viewership records last night, beating the audiences of NBC, ABC, Al-Jazeerah, Charlie Rose, and the Al Franken Show combined. What a grisly affair. By our count, 73 percent of those viewers were watching Dan Rather for the first time, drawn to their screens like looters to a disaster, having to see for themselves what bias looks like after it has crashed, burned and vaporized. CBS produced no one to offer counseling or even to provide a number to a trauma hotline. The solemnity was stifling. We are a nation in recovery.

Darling Dan proved magnanimous. In a gesture to President Bush, he exploited the tragedy of September 11 as no one has attempted to since the GOP convention. We even were shown long-suppressed footage of the attacks of that day. We can expect Dan to set up shop at Ground Zero. Did you see how his hair was combed extra carefully, how the makeup on his face seemed to carry an extra layer or two, how he came out in his finest Sunday suit? Not every man is fortunate enough to officiate at his own professional burial. It marked the end of a very long ego-trip.

Some saw the appearance of Naderite Joan Claybrook as a gesture to CBS's most faithful viewers. We saw it differently. Claybrook was critical of the credit card companies that have the cheek to bill credit card holders for the purchases they make on their cards. But this was no kneejerk populist gesture. Claybrook was rising to the occasion. If we're losing Dan, why go on? Eat, drink, and be merry, she signaled, for tomorrow we shall die, Danless. Raise up our glasses, run up our credit cards, live for today, carpe per diem.

It took courage to resuscitate "Courage!" And shrewdness, as a diversion from Dan's subliminal use of "frequency." All that cunning Dan acquired during his Gunga days came in handy.

The worry now is that Dan might feel called upon to become the next Pope. Why else did he extend courage "to the oppressed and to those whose lot it is to struggle in financial hardship or in failing health." Either that or he intends to run as Hillary's veep or come back as Mother Teresa.

Okay, no more piling on, right? Remember, Dan was speaking in a state of shock, having been rejected not only by his network, but by Uncle Walter Cronkite, who before this week never had an unkind word to say about anyone.

One great thing about the Rathergate fallout has been watching the carefully-coifed cronies of CBS News expose themselves for the backstabbers and liars they've always been.

Dan Rather's a dirtbag, but why didn't Uncle Walter have the "courage" to shiv him like he did the American military during Vietnam before his fall?

Character is revealed, not formed, in the crucible of crisis.

Guess we know a lot more about the character of Les Moonves, Andrew Heyward, Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Don Hewitt, Mike Wallace, Andy Rooney, Mary Mapes, and Josh Howard now, don't we?

A Decent Proposal

Wonder how this statement from Gloria Allred on behalf a stranger offering $1 million to Michael Schiavo if he gives up his bid to have his wife starved to death will play in the MSM:

He contacted me and retained my law firm to convey the following offer to Terri's husband. If Mike Schiavo agrees to transfer the legal right to decide all of Terri's current and future medical desicions to Terri's parents, then Mr. Herring will pay Mr. Schiavo the amount of 1 million dollars (subject to court approval of Terri's parents as her conservators or guardians).

The million dollars was deposited into my law firm's client trust account yesterday and this morning we communicated this million dollar offer in writing to Mr. Schiavo's attorney.

This offer will remain open until Monday, March 14, 2005 at 5:00 p.m.

Mr. Herring thinks there might be hope for Terri Schiavo and wonders why there is a rush to death, especially in view of the advances being made in medical research. He feels that he couldn't live with himself if he didn't make this offer and he sincerely hopes that it will be accepted.
He contacted me and retained my law firm to convey the following offer to Terri's husband. If Mike Schiavo agrees to transfer the legal right to decide all of Terri's current and future medical desicions to Terri's parents, then Mr. Herring will pay Mr. Schiavo the amount of 1 million dollars (subject to court approval of Terri's parents as her conservators or guardians).

The million dollars was deposited into my law firm's client trust account yesterday and this morning we communicated this million dollar offer in writing to Mr. Schiavo's attorney.

This offer will remain open until Monday, March 14, 2005 at 5:00 p.m.

Mr. Herring thinks there might be hope for Terri Schiavo and wonders why there is a rush to death, especially in view of the advances being made in medical research. He feels that he couldn't live with himself if he didn't make this offer and he sincerely hopes that it will be accepted.

Mr. Herring is truly a decent man, which makes Michael Schiavo and the cheerleaders of death who support him, well, indecent.

Is Al Qaeda More Like Al Bundy Than Al Capone?

The sleeper cells that never awoke:

"Al-Qa'ida leadership's intention to attack the United States is not in question," the report reads. (All spellings are as rendered in the original report.) "However, their capability to do so is unclear, particularly in regard to 'spectacular' operations. We believe al-Qa'ida's capability to launch attacks within the United States is dependent on its ability to infiltrate and maintain operatives in the United States."

The 32-page assessment says flatly, "To date, we have not identified any true 'sleeper' agents in the US," seemingly contradicting the "sleeper cell" description prosecutors assigned to seven men in Lackawanna, N.Y., in 2002.

Good Night, Dan

And good riddance.

More from Jim Geraghty.

An Eeeeevil Optometrist?

Mark Steyn lowers the boom on evil optometrist Bashar Assad:

OK, that's enough Domino theory. The point is Assad is suddenly the loneliest guy in the room. He's the eye doctor whose eye no one wants to catch. The only world leader who didn't get the memo was Paul Martin. Who? Well, OK, he's not exactly a world leader, but he is prime minister of Canada, and asked the other day about the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon he replied thus: "It's clear if the Syrians are in Lebanon, it's because peace has to be maintained." I'm sure Assad is grateful for the endorsement. That and a dime'll get you a cup of coffee in Winnipeg.

The ophthalmologist never saw it coming. Assad's plan for a phased partial withdrawal over several months would have been hailed as a breakthrough a couple of years back. Now Bush swats it aside as too little, too late. In a poignant conclusion to his interview with Time last week, the neophyte dictator said: "Please send this message: I am not Saddam Hussein. I want to co-operate." You don't have to be an eye doctor to read the writing on the wall.

The MSM vs. The Bush Administration, Part XXXVIII

The MSM biased against Bush's Social Security reform proposals?

Ca ne fait rien.

What's Going On

Jed Babbin has a great media roundup.

The Intense Competitive Pressure of the Evening News Industry

Er, I don't think Dick Thornburgh and the folks who put out the CBS stonewall report had this in mind when they talked about the intense competition between Dan Rather and the rest of the Hair Helmet Hamas:

Last Tuesday, former NBCNEWS anchor Tom Brokaw and ABCNEWS anchor Peter held a private dinner for outgoing CBSNEWS anchor Dan Rather at Brokaw's apartment on New York's Upper East Side. Among the few guests was Ted Koppel, the longtime host of ABC's NIGHTLINE.

During a dinner of salmon over black rice and a dessert of vanilla cake, Jennings and Brokaw toasted their former rival, with Brokaw emphasizing the adjustments to life after the anchor desk.

The NEW YORK TIMES is planning to detail Rather's long goodbye in Tuesday editions.

I wonder if old man Cronkite ever sat down for some social time with David Brinkley while he was still manning the CBS News anchor desk.

Somehow I doubt they were that chummy back in the day.

Mr. Clean? Not On Your Life

James Bowman identifies another gender gap:

Like most people who have lived with members of the opposite sex, I have always taken it for granted that women in general will care more about keeping clean than men in general. Of course this too may be "only" on account of social conditioning -- as if social conditioning were merely arbitrary and alterable at will -- but it is hard to see when and how such conditioning takes place. Even back in the bad old days of the 1950s when I was growing up, children of both sexes were enjoined to keep their rooms clean, but my sister cared about this without prompting while my brothers and I did not. Even threats rarely moved us. In every survey, women are found still to do the vast majority of the housework that is done in America. Is this only because of "sexism"? Or is it because the women by nature find it as hard not to care as men do to care that housework should be done? I'm only asking. But there seems enough of a doubt in this case, as in that of the women scientists, for people of good will to wish that politics might not bring its coercive force to the matter of making people do what they are disinclined to do.

Perhaps Larry Summers might have gotten out of hot water at Harvard had he simply distracted the women present by dropping crumbs on the floor during his speech.

Why Reform A Cesspool?

Why John Bolton is the man for the UN ambassador gig:

The United Nations’ apologists tend to respond to this litany of complaints by arguing that there is nothing wrong with the institution and its current leadership that a little “reform” won’t fix. They seem to think that an investigation here, a resignation there will suffice — if only the United States redoubles its commitment to the organization, pays its disproportionate share of membership dues and other costs (e.g., those of peacekeeping operations), and plays ball with the U.N.’s lowest-common denominator agenda: Maintaining the status quo, even where it is at odds with the United Nations’ own charter guaranteeing freedom as a basic human right.

It'll be fun to watch Kofi Annan tie himself in knots trying to kiss Bolton's rear end.

The Man of the House

"Czar" Reed knew how to deal with a minority possessed of a tyrannical bent:

Clearly, it is much easier to shut down a windbag in the House than it is in the Senate, where the filibuster still protects the right to effectively unlimited debate. But as the Senate moves closer to some sort of confrontation over filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees, there's a question hanging in the air worth asking: Why is the filibuster allowed in the Senate but not in the House of Representatives?

The answer is that the filibuster did indeed once have a home in the House. That it doesn't anymore is a tribute to a 19th-century Republican hero: Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed of Maine. If he is recalled at all today, it is because of the memorable nickname his enemies fastened to him in the wake of Reed's successful abolition of the filibuster in the House: "Czar."

They Deliver for Who?

Time to end the U.S. Postal monopoly on letter mail:

If USPS were a competitive company — as opposed to bloated federal bureaucracy — stamp prices would be falling, not rising. Despite new technology — like modern reader/sorters that process over 30,000 pieces of mail per hour — stamp prices have risen with inflation since 1970. Imagine if the price of a phone call or sending an e-mail rose with inflation for 30 years.

USPS is simply unable to capitalize on its multibillion-dollar technology investments, or on its massive economies of scale. A December study by leading experts of the Postal Rate Commission notes: "The doubling of overall volume coupled with scale economies should have resulted in the average price of the stamp dropping in real terms."

The U.S. Postal Service is nothing more than a federal welfare program at this point. I wonder what the ratio of managers to mail carriers is?

UPS and FedEx are more than capable of doing this job effectively. Let them.

Those Atheist Founding Fathers

The Nation engages in yet another flight of fancy, this time claiming that the United States was founded not on Christian principles, but on Enlightenment ones:

Why, one wonders, does Allen even bother to raise this argument? Why now, after the Left has so manifestly marginalized itself on moral and religious issues? For one thing, like most everything The Nation publishes, her article accuses President Bush of lying — indeed, of lying on an Orwellian scale. But it's remarkable how uninterested she is in proving the point. She offers not one shred of evidence of the president's actually saying what she accuses him of saying. Not one quote. And even if she were to find some example of Bush's asserting that the United States was founded on Christian and not Enlightenment principles, she would have to provide evidence that Bush himself disbelieved the statement. Otherwise Bush wouldn't be lying, he would merely be expressing his historical judgment. That judgment may or may not be wrong, but that possibility doesn't make it a lie. Lying means saying something other than what you yourself think. It means intentional deceit.

Honest mistakes are not lies. Allen makes plenty of mistakes herself, but it would be unfair to call her a liar.

Well, I don't think it would be unfair.

There's been quite a bit of scholarship on the religious beliefs of the Founders, and as complicated and knotty as they get, one cannot claim with a straight face that these men were atheists or agnostics of Voltaire's stripe.

I wish we could claim that the men who sat in the Constitutional Convention were all free-market evangelicals who favored a strong national defense and the flat tax, but such a formulation simply would not comport with 18th-century society.

Neither would the notion of these men as secular humanists and early proponents of the welfare state.

The author should know better, and I suspect she does.

After all, the revolutions her magazine draws its inspiration from occurred in France and Russia, not (thank God) America.

No One Expects Musical Theater

Monty Python---the musical?

Remember the Lockbox?

Donald Luskin does.

Only in Dubya's version, you get the key, not Al Gore and his greasy little buddies in the Democratic Party.

What If Bonzo Doesn't Want To Go To Bed?

This makes you really respect Ronald Reagan for having the guts to costar with Bonzo:

The Davises were at Animal Haven Ranch, in a canyon 30 miles east of Bakersfield, to celebrate the birthday of Moe, a 39-year-old chimpanzee who was taken from their suburban Los Angeles home in 1999 after biting off part of a woman's finger.

The couple had brought Moe a cake and were standing outside his cage when Buddy and Ollie, two of the four chimpanzees in the adjoining cage, attacked St. James Davis, said Steve Martarano, a spokesman for the state Department of Fish and Game. Moe was not involved in the attack.

Dr. Maureen Martin of Kern Medical Center told KGET-TV of Bakersfield that the monkeys chewed most of Davis' face off and that he would require extensive surgery in an attempt to reattach his nose. Chealander told The Bakersfield Californian that the chimps also tore off Davis' testicles and foot.

WG:
And we evolved from these creatures? Riiiiight.
The end of the article is the best part, though. Davis, after the incident in which "Moe" bit off part of a woman's finger (and certainly BEFORE he was attacked himself), was quoted as saying:

"Animals bite, people bite, Mike Tyson bites. So what?"

Still, you know some animal rights activist idiots will be hacked off because these vicious animals were shot and killed. *Sigh*

The Boston Globe & Religious Bigotry

Dean Barnett's on the case:

THE NON-SEQUITUR in last week's editorial was sufficiently brazen and that it raised a lot of eyebrows amongst Massachusetts political observers. Some cynical analysts suggested that it constituted a threat of sorts: If Romney continued to take the national conservative lead on such hot button issues as gay marriage and embryonic cloning for stem cell research purposes, the Globe would not be above returning his religion to the forefront of the political discussion.

If the editorial was indeed a threat, the Globe made good on it this Sunday, with a lengthy, front-page profile of Governor Romney's relationship with his late father, former Michigan governor and failed presidential candidate George Romney. Curiously, even though the article wasn't on religion, it mentioned the term "Mormon" seven times (eight if you count the caption to the accompanying photo that also appeared on the Globe's front page).

Does anybody honestly believe liberals are the tolerant ones?

Holy Pop Korn!

In a serious twist of fate, former "Korn" guitarist, Brian "Head" Welch, was recently baptized in the Jordan River.

Welch, a founding member of the multi-platinum band, and about 20 other white-robed Christian pilgrims from a Bakersfield, Calif., church were immersed by their pastor, Ron Vietti.

Welch said the ritual baptism had washed away his anger. "You know when you get angry and it builds up? I felt like hurting someone before; now I feel like hugging people," he said.

Vietti said Welch — who has "Jesus" tattooed across his knuckles and "Matthew 11:28," tattooed prominently across his neck — already is attracting a new group of young people to the message of Christianity.

"In recent weeks people have committed their lives to God because they're so inspired by his story," Vietti said.

Welch, who recently left the band after 13 years, plans on further solo creative projects.

MoltenThought Film Festival: "Touch Of Evil"

And the MoltenThought Film Festival rolls on! This time with a look at Orson Welles's film noir classic, Touch of Evil.

The casting is impressive enough -- with heavy hitters Charlton Heston, Janet Leigh, Marlene Dietrich and character actors galore. And the shots are, of course, magnificent.

The plot, as such, is fairly familiar archetype with Heston playing the "Mexican" narcotics officer determined to uncover the perps in a string of bombings and murders in a seedy little border town. (With Mexican in quotes because Heston's Spanish is horrible and he's obviously been painted to look swarthy, but such was the era.) Leigh plays the devoted newlywed (with a twist of moxie). Welles the corrupt local law dawg who always -- and I mean always -- gets his man. Marlene Dietrich is the ironic hooker with a heart of gold.

Welles's character is trying to frame Heston. Leigh gets kidnapped, held for a sort of ransom, and implicated in a serious crime. Meanwhile Heston is tracking down lead after lead in Welles's wake of corruption. The ending is a little too tidy and the incriminating evidence convenient, but for a B classic? Pretty good stuff. (The references to "mainlining marijuana" will get a laugh or two.)

But the star of this show is clearly Welles. His eye for the perfect mise en scène makes nearly every detail appear sharper and somehow heightened (with credit to Richard Metty, his cinematographer). In an opening shot reminiscent of Welles's avant-garde, Citizen Kane, we are immediately pulled in by a continuous sweeping shot lasting over three minutes. The blocking is spectacular and Welles never fails to remind us of his genius for stimulating juxtaposition. While the acting is par and the script a little lackluster, the way each scene is conveyed is perfect. By the first five minutes, you can feel the dirty Mexican heat and smell the tequila-ed desperation oozing from the dives and the exhaust clogged road. He uses metaphor anywhere he can (most notably the stuffed trophy of a slain "bullfighter" foreshadowing certain doom) with succinct intention. Beautiful.

The version viewed in the MoltenThought Film Festival Screening Room is the "restored" adaptation, taken from a detailed memo Welles sent the studio after they took the project away from him and butchered -- I mean edited -- it. We at MoltenThought do not recall the "original" release. Neigh did we, would we speak of it.

If you're in the mood for a gritty and visually stunning film where everything ends satisfyingly, go for this one. It's definitely a "B" masterpiece.

Recommended.

Putting the CU in Chutzpah

So let's see:

You're the president of a major university. The school has been rocked by a sexual assault scandal, the stupid remarks of your football coach and his subsequent suspension, and an uncredentialed fraud who happens to be one of your department heads who mocks 9/11 victims.

When you finally resign, you note the following:

It appears to me it is in the University’s best interest that I remove the issue of my future from the debate so that nothing inhibits CU’s ability to successfully create the bright future it so deserves.

Oh, that's rich.

I wonder why so many people ridicule academia.

Update:

University of Colorado Economics Professor Barry Poulson demonstrates there's at least one academic at the school who understands what honor and integrity mean. They ought to make him president of the school, if he could stand the stench of the corruption he'd be cleaning out.

Why Did the Founders Bother Writing the Constitution?

After all, aged mediocrities like Justice Kennedy simply pencil in whatever they wish the Constitution to read whenever the spirit (and Geritol) moves them:

It does "lessen [the Court's] fidelity to the Constitution" when the Court gives the actions of foreign governments priority over the text of the Constitution, the laws enacted, in this case, by the legislatures of 20 states, and the clearly expressed preferences of the majority of Americans. With all due respect to the Court's majority, there is simply no coherent rationale for counting the "enlightened" opinion of foreign governments as a factor in Constitutional jurisprudence.

Now Kennedy and the other black-robed gibberers have decided that the proper role of the Supreme Court is not to interpret U.S. law through a Constitutional lens, but to align U.S. law with "enlightened" international law.

Not only must Bush win the judiciary battle, we must drive clowns like Reagan-appointed Kennedy from the bench in disgrace.

We are Americans, guardians and inheritors of the world's oldest and most stable republic. We need hew to no fad of law dreamed up by Brussels bureaucrats for the enhancement of their slimy grip on political power.